Oral Hearing at Belmullet in license for government-backed refinery scheme

by split Wed Apr 18, 2007 22:05

it was very strange at tuesdays session that the EIFA attacked the Lobster restocking group.
The proposal for a revised monitoring programme which the fishermens expert suggested was ignored and both S2S and the EIFA tried to discredit the professor.
What was that about, was the professor not employed by the fishermen .
Shell didnt get involved in the debate at all.
It was the strangest thing , to see people supposidly from the same side attacking each other.

by IT reader Thu Apr 19, 2007 13:14

Witness claims Shell broke code

Áine Ryan

Irish Times 19/04/07

The siting of the proposed Corrib gas refinery within the catchment of a water supply for 10,000 people was strongly challenged by Leo Corcoran, of An Taisce, on the third day of the Environmental Protection Agency's oral hearing, in Belmullet, Co Mayo.

He also accused Shell E&P Ireland of breaching codes of practice applied throughout Europe, while Rossport Five's, Micheál Ó Seighin highlighted significant discrepancies in figures used for projected annual emissions from the refinery.

Frank Clinton, the chairman, said Mr Corcoran's allusion to Minister for Communications Noel Dempsey's issuing of consents without using a code of practice was not relevant to the hearing. However, he asked in what jurisdiction were they effective.

"It is a farce if these codes of practice are not mandated. They must apply to highly hazardous infrastructure and are used anywhere in Europe, in the UK, in Norway. They mightn't happen in Nigeria," said Mr Corcoran, who is due to make An Taisce's submission today.

Cross-examining Shell expert witness James Garvie, an air quality specialist, Mr Ó Seighin said the original planning application in November 2000 had cited annual emissions of CO2 at 69,840 tonnes.

When the same project was reapplied for in April 2001, the emissions had been reduced by 20,839 tonnes or by about 30 per cent. Mr Garvie told yesterday's hearing the terminal is predicted to emit about 38,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

"Where does the spin end and the science begin?" asked Mr Ó Seighin. Mr Garvie told the hearing that rigorous air-dispersion modelling had indicated that all emissions, including cold-venting, will not have a significant impact on human health, animals or plants.

Micheál Ó Seighin and Fr Michael Nallen at the hearing

by pk Thu Apr 19, 2007 19:01

It seems that the split caused by the EIFA chairman, taking part in training for blockades http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81513 has finally being made public.
The majority of Erris fishermen are amazed that the chairman of the EIFA and S2S attacked their representative at Tuesdays sitting.
The lobster conservation committee had contracted an aquatic eco-toxicologist to travel from the uk, to suggest a more robust monitoring regime, to ensure the protection of their efforts at restocking the lobster population in the area.
It seems that once the expert had finished giving his presentation, he was immediately attacked by everybody, except shell, who had seven experts including their own eco-toxicologist.
The chairman is reported as saying that "this is not the place for internal feuds to be discussed".
So once again I say "well done CoolJ" you have achieved what shell found impossible

by reason Thu Apr 19, 2007 19:33

below is the reason the lobster restocking group were attacked,

Appellant William Walker, chairman of a lobster re-stocking group which is a sub-committee of the Erris Inshore Fishermen's Association, said the location of the discharge pipe from the proposed refinery was not appropriate and should be reviewed.

'It seemed ludicrous Shell would be the only monitor of the marine environment close to the

discharge area'

However, he said, his objection primarily concentrated on "the monitoring of the impact of the discharge to sea", since it seemed ludicrous that Shell would be the only monitor of the marine environment close to the discharge area.

Expert witness for the lobster group, Professor Peter Matthiessen, who is an independent ecotoxicology consultant, said he had advised the group that the likely environmental risks from the discharge, based on documents provided by Shell, were acceptably small.

He advised that a more rigorous monitoring programme be imposed, saying the main fishery in the area, crab and lobster, had been omitted as monitoring targets.

When asked by appellant Tony Irwin would it not be easier to simply move the discharge pipe further out to sea, Prof Matthiessen highlighted the extra costs for Shell, saying that cost-benefits must be rationalised.

He added that, "in essence", the pipe would need a robust monitoring regime no matter where it was situated.

Aine Ryan

by reporter Fri Apr 20, 2007 08:48

Below is a factual report of what happend on Tuesday.
The story will appear in a national newspaper over the weekend.

Mr. divers (EIFA) rounded on Mr. Walker (lobster re-stocking) and suggested he was "urged" to object to the monitoring regime?
The chairman reprimanded Mr. Divers, then Mr. divers asked how many of the V-notching Committee had agreed to have the expert present, to which Mr. Walker stated "all of the committee".
He was then asked how many people were on the committee, to which Mr. walker replied "five".
At this point the chairman once again cautioned Mr. Divers on his line of questioning.
From that point Mr. Divers, and a number of prominent S2S figures attempted to discredit the professor,and his report. (without once mentioning his revised monitoring suggestions).
He is said to have answered all questions fairly, Including questions about the contamination of carramore lake.
Shell never asked a question of either Mr. Walker or the professor. (I can only guess they were in shock to witness what had just occurred).

by MA reader Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:19

An expert environmental consultant has called for a “belt and braces” approach in preventing pollution of Broadhaven Bay from discharges from the outfall pipe of the Corrib gas terminal.

http://www.mayoadvertiser.com/index.php?aid=1759

by monica m Fri Apr 20, 2007 17:28

Ok, I think it is well time that S2S and its pals explain why they attacked the environmental consultant who was there to help protect the Erris environment.
They made total fools of themselves trying to argue with the expert, shell must have left the hearing Tuesday evening smiling , the questions asked of the professor, and his very clear answers must have been music to the ears of shells people.
The appellant Willie walker and the professor tried on several occasions to concentrate on the monitoring, but S2S kept questioning him on everything from carramore lake to hormones in fish.
If S2S wanted expert advice, why didn't they have their own environmental consultant to represent them?

by saddened Fri Apr 20, 2007 20:13

I think it is sad that some people, who will have to deal with the consequences of Shell destroying the environment, are so full of vitriol that they rejoice in what they perceive as a setback for the campaign to protect their neighborhood.

Shell smiling is not good for those who want to breathe clean air in Erris, no matter how much you hate Shell to Sea.

by M.M Fri Apr 20, 2007 20:58

But why.
why did they attack, is there something we should know about the professor or the appellant group.
the professor didn't sound like he was working for shell, he didn't want to talk about the report, he wanted to discuss monitoring.
why did S2S and the EIFA attack a person who was there to ensure a proper monitoring effort was in place, wherever the discharge is located.
They hounded him for FOUR HOURS with questions which were clearly prearranged.
He was even asked if he ever worked for Shell or any oil company, to which he clearly replied NO.
now answers please,S2S.

by Fearbolg - s2s Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:31

Hello, Monica.

The Professor was questioned for hours because his answers were, by and large, incomplete, ill-informed and evasive.

A good example of this was the fact that he was unaware of the tidal motion in the bay, i.e that it is circular and that the bay does'nt flush.

You of all people should see the significance of this as you've been going with the flow for years.

by tide Sat Apr 21, 2007 14:49

I have never heard a sadder excuse, the tide in broadhaven bay flushes out similar to tide in every bay around the coast of Ireland.
To listen to fools say that a bay with an enterance of "5km across" is an enclosed bay makes me laugh.
The mouth of the bay is almost as wide as the bay is deep/long.
Can S2S not come up with a better excuse, why they attacked the expert, which probably done more for shells chances of getting the IPPC licence, than anything shells own experts could have done.
If that is the real reason why they attacked these two men, (one of them a fisherman with over 20 yrs experence) then fine, but remember there will be a survey undertaken in broadhaven bay next month to determine excatly what happens with the tides.
incidently who says the bay is enclosed and doesnt flush?

by CL Sat Apr 21, 2007 19:05

It is easy to explain why they tried and failed to discredit the professor.
That was the same professor which authored the report earlier this year stating the discharge was safe.
Of course S2S cant acknowledge this to be true, as the fishermen were their last hope to stop the refinery.
I can report that the "vast majority" of fishermen are furious at the actions of the EIFA, and moves are underway to distance themselves from the chairman Mr. Divers.
One senior fisherman I have spoken to stated "never before have we witnessed such hostilities towards one of our most respected members".
It is thought that the disaffected fishermen will announce shortly their intentions to form a new organization separate from the EIFA.
The fisherman said " we tried very hard to avoid a split, but the actions at the oral hearing has left us with no choice".

by local Sat Apr 21, 2007 21:04

How are you celebrating the award of the Goldman prize to your neighbour CL?

Tapping out spiteful nonsense at your computer...

You will be benefit by Shell to Sea winning, and you will be worse off if -God forbid- Shell get their way. So why spend your Saturday evening trying your best to undermine the campaign with this unsubstantated nonsense about the fishermen?

by CL Sat Apr 21, 2007 21:43

I congratulate Willie on winning this prestigious award, and agree he deserves it, for his stance on the high pressure pipe.
I wish him and his family good luck, and hope this issue with the pipe will be resolved to the satisfaction of all the people of rossport.
You have "never" seen me complain/argue against the rossport five, I think what they did, was a great sacrifice, and showed their commitment to the safety of their family, and friends.

Their is another tread on indymedia dealing with the award, but this tread is dealing with the oral hearings.
I am just pondering the logic associated with attacking a person whose sole purpose for being in the country, was to help protect our environment.
I was expecting posts implying that he had been bought by shell, or some other conspiracy, (but no) no claims he was a plant brought here to tell everybody "shell is great".
It is obvious from the questions he was asked, and the people who asked them, that this wasn't "off the cuff" questioning, but a carefully planned attempted to discredit him.
From the feedback I received from people present, it seems that it totally backfired, and that four hours of interrogation may have far-reaching repercussions for both S2S and the unity of the fishing community in Erris.

by IT Reader Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:17

(For those who don't have a subscription to the IT:)

New technology 'not for Corrib'

Áine Ryan

A new gas-processing technology, used by Shell offshore in Malaysia, was debated at the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) hearing into the issuing of an integrated pollution prevention control licence, which resumed yesterday in Belmullet.

An expert witness for Shell E&P Ireland argued that the innovative Twister technology, which condenses and separates water from hydrocarbons and natural gas, was not suitable for the remote Corrib field and would not reduce the overall "footprint" of the project.

Shell senior process engineer, James McBrien, said that Corrib's hostile conditions, coupled with drilling requirements, made it impractical to use the technology on an unmanned field.

"Given the gas composition, and when environmental and safety impacts are considered, a subsea tieback to an onshore gas processing facility is the best available technique for developing the Corrib field," said Mr McBrien in his submission.

He was responding to an objection which argued that Shell had a responsibility to inform the EPA of Twister and as to "why it had not been considered" for Corrib.

Micheál Ó Seighín, one of the Rossport Five, asked Mr McBrien if he would accept that this alternative was best for the community.

"I'm not in a position to comment on your valid concerns," said Mr McBrien.

Shell to Sea campaigner John Monaghan asked Corrib project manager Gerry Costello had Shell ever considered offshore, unmanned platforms at the concept stage and their positive impact on levels of emissions.

Mr Costello said it would have been discussed but the consideration was not mentioned in the environmental impact statement, which outlined the suitability of the onshore option.

He also said that "emissions from a shallow-water platform were considered to be considerably higher than from an onshore platform".

Aspects of Shell's security of supply of Corrib gas were also challenged.

The hearing continues today.

Shell contractor filming people on the road from inside the proposed refinery site

by WP Reader Wed Apr 25, 2007 18:40

Shell has put Corrib project ahead of local people, says Erris priest
By Daniel Hickey
WESTERN PEOPLE 25 April 2007

Fr Michael Nallen administers in Kilcommon parish, one of the largest parishes in Mayo, if not in Ireland. And it is in the middle of that parish - in Bellanaboy to be precise - where Shell E&P Ireland propose to build a gas refinery. Daniel Hickey reports.

FR Nallen is one of the 13 appellants who submitted an objection to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding their preliminary approval of a pollution control licence for the operation of the refinery, and last Monday the EPA’s oral hearing into granting of that licence began in the Broadhaven Bay Hotel in Belmullet. Other appellants include Shell E&P Ireland, An Taisce, the Erris Inshore Fishermen’s Association and several members of the Shell to Sea campaign.

On Thursday evening, Fr Nallen addressed the hearing.

“My own submission is out of concern,” he said. “I wrote it out of concern for our environment, for our marine environment, the fishermen who depend on it.”

The prevalent mood - among the objectors at least - was one of concern and of worry.

And whether or not those worries and concerns have been adequately addressed at the oral hearing appears to depend on which side of the dispute your sympathies dwell.

Shell has employed eight witnesses as part of a team led by senior counsel Esmonde Keane.

On Monday, Shell was accused of “trying to create an impression” that it will be discharging contaminants from the Corrib gas refinery “way out to sea”.

According to Mr Divers, the company also appears to be resorting to less stringent environmental quality standards for treatment and volume of the discharge.

The main concern of the Erris Inshore Fishermen’s Association relates to the impact on the marine environment of the outfall pipe from the refinery; treated chemicals and mechanical contaminants.

Appellant Imelda Moran queried why other agencies, including the Health and Safety Authority (HSA), Mayo County Council and An Bord Pleanala, were not represented at the hearing, given that it was dealing with an integrated pollution licence.

The EPA has already granted preliminary approval for an integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) licence for the refinery, but it was confirmed on Monday that the EPA inspector responsible for the decision will not be appearing at the hearing.

Several parties criticised this, including Anthony Irwin, one of the appellants, who told the chairman that it was “absolutely useless” if the relevant EPA official was absent.

Delivering its submission on Monday, Corrib gas environmental adviser Agnes McLaverty said that natural gas operations in general did not pose large risks to the environment or to the public.

The processes and equipment proposed for the Bellanaboy Bridge refinery represented “technologies that Shell uses in gas plants in many parts of the world” she said, and compliance with legislation and with conditions of the IPPC licence would be “key priorities” for future management and staff in the refinery.

Ms McLaverty, a Norwegian chemical engineer who has worked in the oil and gas industry for 30 years, described in a 34-page submission the planned operation of the Bellanaboy refinery.

On Wednesday, Micheal O’Seighin, one of the objectors, pointed out disparities in the Shell’s figures regarding predicted emissions from the proposed refinery.

In its application for planning permission in November 2000, the company said approximately 65 million tonnes of CO2 per year would be emitted from the refinery.

In April 2001 the same project was applied for again. Predicted emissions for CO2 had fallen to approximately 47 million kgs per year, a reduction of 27 per cent.

Questioning the figures, Mr O’Seighin asked: “Where does spin end and science begin?”

“On what basis,” he asked, “does the EPA decide that one set of figures is more credible than another set of figures?”

James Garvie - an Associate Director in Shell with responsibilities for the atmospheric environment - said that if emissions do increase at the proposed refinery, Shell will be “in breach of the proposed determination of the IPPC licence” and that “it is anticipated that emissions will be significantly less than the limits set by the proposed determination [of the IPPC licence].

“If non-compliance occurs, the EPA has full licence to review the IPPC,” he said.

On Thursday, while discussing objections raised in relation to air quality, doubts were voiced over the meteorological data assessed by Shell in their modelling and design of the proposed Bellanaboy refinery - in particular, how it would deal with air quality and drainage.

The chairman said the issue of meteorological data will be taken into account in the recommendation he makes to the EPA.

Responding to a number of the appellants’ concerns about a repeat of the rainfall conditions that resulted in the Pollathomish landslide of 2003, Dr Nigel Peters - employed by Shell as a Senior Consultant in Health, Safety and the Environment - said that the company have made provisions for such a scenario. The company has designed for a maximum rainfall event of 67.8 mm over 24 hours, he said. When asked by the chairman where that figure was taken from, Dr Peters said it was taken from the data regarding the Pollathomas landslide.

Responding to the chairman’s assertion that if there is “an actual recorded, monitored figure, you should know about it,” Dr Peters said that he did not know where exactly the figure was taken from.

The chairman added that he needed to know whether or not the figure of 67.8 mm was an actual measured figure or a projection.

Disputing the data, Mr O’Seighin said that “no rain fell in Belmullet that night”.

Shell’s weather data has been taken from Belmullet weather station.

Mr Garvie said that Shell has no actual data from the site of the proposed refinery, and that it is “common practice” to use the nearest set of data available.

Anthony Irwin said he was “amazed” that Shell did not carry out studies on the site. “You cannot predict from Belmullet what the weather is doing at Bellanaboy,” he said.

Although Mr Peters said that the site has been designed to take into account “all of the eventualities” to which a number of the objectors alluded, the doubt, worry and concerns remain.

The figure of 67.8mm over 24 hours had “no scientific validity at all,” said Mr O’Seighin.

Blame for the Corrib gas controversy was firmly laid on the doorstep of Minister for the Marine Noel Dempsey and former minister Frank Fahey by a member of An Taisce.

Leo Corcoran, a former Bord Gáis engineer, argued that the issuing of “dodgy consents” was the biggest mistake, and that the manner in which the project has been handled would never have been countenanced by Bord Gáis.

His claim that Shell was in breach of codes of practice adhered to throughout Europe was vigorously challenged by Shell's senior counsel, Esmonde Keane, who was accused by appellant Ed Moran of “using and abusing” court-room techniques in his cross-examination.

Mr Corcoran said there were significant differences between the Bellanaboy refinery and one at St Fergus, in Scotland, which was used as an evaluation basis by the EPA inspector who granted the conditional IPPC licence last January. The St Fergus refinery is located exactly on the coastline, has a short production pipe, is not adjacent to a water catchment area and is located in a specially designated area for oil development, he said.

He said the fact that a Shell expert witness, Dr Nigel Peters, a health, safety and environment consultant with the company, had refused to answer a key question was telling. Mr Corcoran had asked whether it would be acceptable practice in Scotland to have instead located St Fergus adjacent to the nearby town of Peterhead, which, like Bellanaboy, is within a catchment area of drinking water for 10,000 people.

In his submission, Leo Corcoran said the Scottish Environment Protection Authority - “an organisation with considerable experience in licensing such facilities” - agreed the terminal should not be located within a drinking water catchment.

He quoted its head of water policy, Martin Marsden: “When consulted on the location of major industrial facilities, SEPA would normally recommend against placing such facilities at locations which could affect public drinking water.”

An episode - illustrative, perhaps, of the hearing though not definitive - is when Dr Nigel Peters offered to “take the opportunity to address some uncertainty”.

He showed diagrams of the design of the drainage system, to the objectors, to the Shell employees and to the EPA chairmen.

Aiming a prompter at the screen, Dr Peters explained the flow of water through the site and the drainage off it.

Afterward, Mr O’Seighin said: “It’s a very fine system and I would like to have it in my back garden, but we must keep it in mind that it’s theoretical and that with human error and accumulations of sediment... that it’s from these something may happen along the way...”

The uncertainty which Dr Peters - and the other Shell witnesses - said he was trying to address did not, and has not, disappeared.

The answer for why it has not disappeared may be found in something Fr Nallen said during his submission. “Throughout,” said Fr Nallen referring to the entire process, from 2000 until the present, “people have been put in second place. The issue seems to be commerce... We’re all supporters of the project but we want it done right.”

by watcher Wed Apr 25, 2007 20:05

Is this not a reflection of the type of media (never mind gov) we have to live with.
On Tuesday S2S and the EIFA committed what can only be labeled "campaign suicide" when they insisted on interrogating a expert who was there to suggest a "more robust" monitoring programme (on behalf of the fishermen (-: ).
But according to the WP the oral hearing didn't have anything to report on that day.
It seems "strange" that a newspaper which shells PR guru Christy Loftus is a senior employee, never mentions the greatest PR coup, handed to Shell by the S2S group on that day.
If that expert wasn't "bought" by shell before he spoke, I suspect they sent him one huge check afterwards, as he probably has done more for the shell cause than anything their own people could ever hope to achieve.
Did anybody else notice the the fact, Tuesday was airbrushed out of the WP coverage?

by Local Wed Apr 25, 2007 20:18

maybe you're the only one who thinks it's important, and despite having the greatest respect for the Rossport Five, and not wanting to see the pipeline built, you feel the need to continuously (and anonymously) rubbish the Shell to Sea Campaign, and write nonsense about ''campaign suicide" which no one else agrees with.

Here's a suggestion: Write a letter to the editor of the Western People - oh but you can't do that, you'd need to sign it with your real name...

by Stephen - . Wed Apr 25, 2007 20:27 Rossport

No one else agrees with watchers last post , where did you dig that information from local ? enlighten us please

by local Wed Apr 25, 2007 20:41

Maybe somebody else agrees but they are very quiet if they do.

The Oral Hearing is being covered in the Western People, the Mayo News, The Mayo Advertiser, the Irish Times and the Irish Independent, indymedia.ie, and in other places. No one, in any of these reports, has said anything about "campaign suicide' or used any roughly equivalent term.

Perhaps it is all these journalists who are mistaken, and the many people who believe that Confused Local/Watcher is correct will come forward in the next few days. Maybe we should be be keepinmg an eye on the letters pages of all the above publications in the next few days and weeks. But I wouldn't count on it.

by CL Thu Apr 26, 2007 09:08

Local. It may disappoint you to learn that in fact I am not the same person as "watcher".
Secondly, watcher is correct, Tuesday has been ignored by the Western People, not only the expert but also the very important issue of cold venting.
Which is one of (if not the main) arguments for why the IPPC license should be refused.
Now can anybody explain why the Western people would think the discussion on cold venting was not thought important enough to mention?

by local Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:43

I'm reeling from the news that Confused Local thinks the polluting license should be refused for the refinery.

How can that be squared with the constant attacks and sniping at the campaign, the refusal to be in any way constructive, the lies about intimidation, and the fact that you refuse to actually do anything to stop this refinery/pipeline scheme.

It seems that you prefer to stand on the sidelines and let other people go to jail for you, let other people get beaten for you, let others give up paid work to give months and years to the campaign.

Why on earth should anyone pay attention to anything you say?

by CL Thu Apr 26, 2007 22:34

I was beginning to wonder if anybody other than myself and a few others, (who argue with me) actually read the posts on Indymedia.
I am thinking of give up trying to convince the hard-line opponents of this project,of anything.
The only reason I clarify the facts, is to inform others, who may not have as much time on their hands to research for themselves.
I have realized of late, that the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to realize this project cannot be stopped.
Only today it was announced that the Gardai presence at the refinery has cost over "five million euro" to date, and will cost many more millions in future.
But there isn't a public outcry at the waste of taxpayers money on policing, why?.
could it be that "the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to realize this project cannot be stopped"?.

Maybe there is another reason, that I am too dumb to comprehend!

by winifred - shell to sea Sun May 06, 2007 00:45

the best and least dangerous method to bring gas ashore should be enforced ie twistor method jreland deserves nothjng less than safest in view of the lack of emergency services such as hospitals ambulances a&es fire brigades rescue teams .having lived in a country with frequent explosions and witnessed firsthand the horrors after such an event;shellto sea should be comended for their delaying tac tics giving the people of the country time to asses necessary facilities or lack of before plans are passed ;serious consideration should also be given to recurring bush fires we are talking highly explosive substance not to be trivalised

by twister Sun May 06, 2007 11:18

If the twister was used, would it then be ok to have the refinery at bellinaboy.
what difference would it make to the project,

by cool j Sun May 06, 2007 23:32

Since all refining will be done out to sea which would also remove the need for a high pressure raw gas pipe running through the small Erris communities of Rossport, Glengad etc.

PS - The manufactored hullaballu about Prof Matthsions report from the usual sources is truely sad at this stage. Get over it trolls, at the hearing the report was exposed for what it was, a worthless exercise primarily because it was exclusivley based on proven dodgy information provided by Shell. One example of this is the fact that Shell and their payed "experts" have delibratly massively over-estimated the amount of heavy metal pollution currently in the bay(despite the fact that it was described as pristine by one of Shell's own "experts") so as they could claim, if this monstrocity ever got off the ground that any problems that develope in the bay during the lifetime of the project were pre-existing and nothing to do with their toxic discharges.

by myth buster Mon May 07, 2007 11:24

cool j you continue to make the same fatal mistake.
You assume the people of Erris are stupid.
(1) your claim, that the twister would remove the need for a land based refinery is incorrect, I admit this link is to a shell website but if anybody can show the info to be incorrect then by all means point out the inaccuracies. http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=ie-en&FC2=/i....html

(2) "at the hearing the report was exposed for what it was, a worthless exercise primarily because it was exclusivley based on proven dodgy information provided by Shell." actually he says in the report "
The prime sources of information on the proposed produced water discharge are the

IPPC Licensing Application (reg. no. 738) submitted to the Irish Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) in 2004 by the developers of the Bellanaboy terminal

(Shell), and the Shell E&P Gas Terminal Planning Application (no. P03/3343) to

Mayo County Council, updated on 30 April 2004. These and other documents have

been accessed via the Irish EPA’s website at

http://www.epa.ie/terminalfour/ippc/iDpc-vijeswp.? regflo=PO738-0 1 and the Mayo

County Council website at

http://services. mayococo. ie/mcc4/PlannindGas TerminalIndex. asp.

(((The information provided therein will be compared with the characteristics and

effects of waters produced from other gas fields, and the impacts predicted in the

planning application will be compared with internationally available information on

the toxicity of the produced water’s components. The objective of this report is

therefore to assess whether the predicted characteristics and effects of the produced

water (the latter claimed in the IPPC application and offshore environmental impact

statement [EIS] to be negligible) are credible in the light of international experience

with other gas field discharges.))) http://www.epa.ie/licences/lic_eDMS/090151b28015abb1.pdf

(3) "One example of this is the fact that Shell and their payed "experts" have delibratly massively over-estimated the amount of heavy metal pollution currently in the bay(despite the fact that it was described as pristine by one of Shell's own "experts") "

You, with your degrees and education should know there is few "if any" pristine enjoinments on the planet, if it was "pristine"then there would be Zero background levels of heavy metals from human sources (this is not the case as you know) however the bay is indeed relatively unpolluted , and must remain so.

(4) S2S should have realized when they tried to convince us the water supply was being poisoned, that we would eventually get the true facts from a reliable source, only last week it was proven that the site was NOT causing any harm to the lake and most of the other streams feeding the lake have higher levels of aluminum

by JR Mon May 07, 2007 11:47

Why is it necessary to locate the refinery so far inland? Couldn't it be located on the coastline as in Norway.
Isn't the real reason because the govt. wants to turn Bellanaboy into an oil and gas refinery complex?
This will have major implications for pollution affecting Mayo to Ballina and beyond. The farmers of Mayo can then kiss their markets goodbye. Who wants to drink milk polluted with dioxins and benzene?
Am I scaremongering? Let me put it this way - I will be very careful in my choice of food.

by sense Mon May 07, 2007 17:44

why would the gov want to turn Bellanaboy into an oil and gas refinery complex?
why not a oil and gas refinery complex on the coastline.
the plan is for a gas refinery at bellinaboy, nobody has sought permission for an oil refinery.
so please stop trying to put dogs in windows!

by CL Mon May 07, 2007 20:12

the poster above referred to a report on the effects of runoff from the refinery site on the drinking water for erris.

here is an extract from that report ...................
The results show that in the last monitoring period the discharge of surface
water from the Terminal Site has had no significant impact on the water
quality of the Bellanaboy River or on the water quality of Carrowmore Lake.
The results also show that the discharge of surface water from the Terminal
Site has had no impact on the quality of drinking water produced at the Erris
Regional Water Supply Scheme at Barnatra. An isolated exceedance of
Aluminium in the Erris drinking water supply recorded by the HSE on Jan 23rd
2007 was a result of a minor operational difficulty at the Erris Regional Water
Treatment Plant. It is not linked to natural background Aluminium levels in
Carrowmore Lake. The operational difficulty was dealt with within a matter of
hours on the day.
...........................
The levels of suspended solids, turbidity and aluminium in surface waters
discharging from the site have exceeded agreed trigger levels on a number of
occasions in the last month. These exceedances have had no significant
impact on water quality in the Bellanaboy River or Carrowmore Lake. The
developer has put in place mitigation measures to deal with the exceedances.
A diesel spill, which occurred on Saturday 24th March near the settlement
ponds, was reported to Mayo County Council on Monday 26th March. An
immediate investigation by Mayo County Council was carried out. It appears
that this spill was contained onsite and did not enter the watercourses.
Following complaints from the public on Monday 26th about diesel in the
stream off site near the location of the abovementioned spill the matter was
further investigated by Mayo County Council. A small trace of diesel/oil was
found in the stream outside the site, which flows into the Bellanaboy River.
Mayo County Council carried out cleanup works on this stream last week and
will continue to monitor the stream for any further diesel/oil residues.

the full report is at ....................http://www.mayococo.ie/en/News/GasTerminal/MinutesofMon...n.pdf

by Sir Tue May 08, 2007 00:32

For sense -
the reason the large inland site was chosen is because no LARGE coastal site was
available.
The unanswered question remains - why such a large site?
JR is making a lot of sense

by scrapeing Tue May 08, 2007 08:56

First it was cancer caused by emmisions from the refinery, when that was shown to be false,it was poisining the seas, when that was proven to false, it was poisining of carrowmore lake, now that has been proven false and we are being told there will be an oil refinery built at bellanaboy.
I wonder what will the next unfounded scare be?

by Jack Tue May 08, 2007 09:56

Cancer caused by emissions - not disproved - Shell admits that the emissions can cause cancer.
Poisoning the sea - not disproved - what would you call dumping toxins in the sea?
Poisoning of Carrowmore Lake - not disproved - the biggest threat to health in Erris
Refinery complex - not even denied.

Talk about unfounded information!

by Local Tue May 08, 2007 11:07

"A diesel spill, which occurred on Saturday 24th March near the settlement
ponds, was reported to Mayo County Council on Monday 26th March. An
immediate investigation by Mayo County Council was carried out. It appears
that this spill was contained onsite and did not enter the watercourses."

It might appear that way to you, but I was up there two weeks later and you could still smell the diesel in the water coming off the site.

That report sited by Confused Local above is classic bullshit from someone who is buying Shell's line. It "appears" some people on this site are swallowing it hook line and sinker (along with the aluminium in the water caused, of course, by minor problems which have since been rectified...)

by support Tue May 08, 2007 19:31

the election campaign is now well underway. has any of the political parties stated support for shell-to-sea ?
members of the labour party and the greens were full of promises before the election was called, but where are their promises now?
the silence is deafening, even cowley hasnt mentioned supporting Shell-to-sea in his campaign.
so I wonder will it make any difference who gets power after the election, it seems they all will push ahead with the refinery at bellanaboy.

by Jack Tue May 08, 2007 23:07

America's 167 Most Dangerous Polluters

http://www.rachel.org/BULLETIN/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=960

Could this be the future of Bellanaboy?

by good news Wed May 09, 2007 07:25

I notice there isnt ONE gas refinery included in the list, so good news for erris!

by Mc Wed May 09, 2007 08:47

Shell is mentioned 3 times is this EPA list of America's worst polluters.
Erris - be afraid........be very afraid.

by gas Wed May 09, 2007 14:34

yes chemical plants. no gas refineries shells or anybody elses!

by Jack Wed May 09, 2007 18:26

Yes there are lots of reasons to protest but not everyone has the balls to do so.
The people of erris are different. They decided not to be walked on or bullied.
The people of ireland also have good reason to protest - their assets are being given away by a corrupt
government.
This whole deal could have easily been conducted to everyone's benefit but
greed and treason got in the way.
Aherne's overriding legacy will not be peace in the north. It will be that he oversaw biggest and
most corrupt sellout of the Irish people.
This deal should haunt FF for decades to come.

by CL Thu May 10, 2007 22:41

"The people of Ireland also have good reason to protest - their assets are being given away by a corrupt
government."
the people of mayo and Ireland will give their opinion on the 24 may,if and when S2S "pet TD" is ousted from office.
will the S2S group admit then what I have being saying for a long time "most of Erris want this gas brought ashore and are fed up with the S2S campaign?
probably not, but its true.
my guess is that the people of Ireland want this gas and are satisfied enough with a 25% tax take(15 billion euro) from the 60 billion euro worth of gas that is in the corrib field.(S2S figures)
15 billion Euros added to the Irish economy is a lot of money.
remembering the fact that if EEI hadn't discovered this field then the state would have a gas field off its coast which nobody knew existed.

by jack Thu May 10, 2007 23:38

Were the people of Nigeria hanged for standing up to the environmental bully-boys? No, but
nine of them were.
Were the people of Mayo sent to prison for asserting their rights? No, but five of them were.
CL thinks that this is about numbers - "How many legions has the pope?"- the attitude of bullies everywhere.
Its not! Its about justice.
But somehow I think I'm wasting my time trying to argue that point.

by Local Fri May 11, 2007 00:11

Confused Local, do you think the refinery should be given a licence or not?

(Your figures are nonsense you know, both in terms of support for Shell, and tax take from the gas. I'd try to explain it to you but what would be the point? You have a need to make meaningless spiteful comments about your neighbours and nothing will stop you)

by D Fri May 11, 2007 08:05

To Jack and Local

S2S and its supporters cannot have it both ways - either you are concerned about the extent of the "giveaway" of natural resources or you are not interested in the numbers involved.

The value of the gas at Corrib as quoted by CL is nonsense, it is actually more like €3-4 billion, but he or she is quite correct in saying that the tax take is 25%; therefore the Irish taxpayers will receive 25% of the profit.

by CL Fri May 11, 2007 09:02

I have always made my opinion clear, this refinery should (and could) have been built on the shoreline.
But when the project could have been changed 5/6 years ago when J Healy and others objected, there was no sign of the main players in S2S.

Now unless some legal method is found to prevent the development at bellanaboy, it will be built there.
I think the licence will be granted, and I never said otherwise!
S2S have cried wolf so many times in the past, that their credibility is almost nil.
I have stated before that you cant fool al of the people all of the time.
you just need to look at all the scare stories we have been fed by S2S, (cancer from emissions, fish unsalable,ocean not safe to swim in,pollution of drinking water, fireball from cold venting, toxic cloud from methanol"Bhopal" and more)
all of which they have no science to even suggest might occur. (a perfect example of this was the "expert" friends of rossport had at the oral hearing, he knew a toxic cloud would kill everybody down wind from the refinery, but he couldn't show how that cloud would occur.
and to "D" I know the figures I used are fantasy, but they are the figures used by S2S.

by belmullet court Thu May 17, 2007 19:00

" Three Erris fishermen recently received summonses in relation to alleged incidents during protests at the Bellanaboy gas terminal late last year, and a Garda spokesman said more summonses may be issued."

there is a special sitting of belmullet court next monday (21th) when the case against the three men will be heard.
the gardai will call 14 gardai to give evedence, the three men (pat O donnell "the cheif" his son johnathon and a enda carey ) are pleading not guilty.
If they are found guilty they could face a jail term.

by Mayo News Reader Tue Jun 05, 2007 13:15

Licence decision deferred

Tuesday, 05 June 2007 Mayo News

Licence decision deferred

Claire Egan

A DECISION on whether or not an Integrated Pollution Prevention Control licence for the Corrib gas terminal will be awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been deferred until late September.

Following an intensive consultation phase, the EPA has informed all parties concerned – the applicant, Shell E&P Ireland and objectors – that extra time is required by the environmental board to adjudicate on the findings of the consultative hearing.

Speaking to The Mayo News, John Egan of Shell E&P Ireland, said that they were not unduly concerned by the announcement by the EPA.

“This is a common procedure and under the terms and conditions of the EPA’s own rules and regulations they are stating that they will not meet their own deadline. All parties have been informed of this,” said Mr Egan.

The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control licence (IPPC) is one of the key elements of the €900 million project. At present, preliminary approval for the IPPC licence, which covers emissions from the terminal to the marine environment and atmosphere, has been awarded to Shell E&P.

Owing to the lodgement of 13 objections, including one by Shell E&P Ireland, an oral hearing was held in Belmullet. The Erris Inshore Fishermen’s Association, An Taisce, Shell to Sea and local parish priest Fr Michael Nallen were among the objectors.